City of Vancouver v. Reid

City of Vancouver v. Reid

The JJP erred by characterizing the accused's belief as a mistake of fact and applying the due diligence defence; the accused's reliance involved the interpretation/existence of a legal prohibition (mistake of law), which does not constitute due diligence for strict liability offences. The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered before the JJP so all defences can be fully addressed.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1605
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: City of Vancouver; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Gregory Vernon James Reid
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Acquittal (judicial Justice of the Peace) / Appeal Hearing at Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Acquittal set aside
Legal Topics
Development Permits, Strict Liability Offences, Due Diligence Defence, Mistake of Law Vs Mistake of Fact, Vagueness and Certainty in By‑laws
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Development Permits Strict Liability Offences Due Diligence Defence Mistake of Law Vs Mistake of Fact +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Vancouver

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Gregory Vernon James Reid

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Acquittal (judicial Justice of the Peace) / Appeal Hearing at Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alteration of land configuration constituted a 'development' under the By‑law and Vancouver Charter
  2. 2 Whether the Justice of the Peace erred in treating the accused's belief as a mistake of fact rather than a mistake of law
  3. 3 Whether enquiries made by the accused constituted due diligence for a strict liability offence

Ratio Decidendi

The JJP erred by characterizing the accused's belief as a mistake of fact and applying the due diligence defence; the accused's reliance involved the interpretation/existence of a legal prohibition (mistake of law), which does not constitute due diligence for strict liability offences. The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered before the JJP so all defences can be fully addressed.

Court Disposition

Acquittal set aside

Orders

  • Verdict of acquittal set aside
  • New trial ordered before the Judicial Justice of the Peace on all defences available to the respondent